GAY Hatemail to Richard Dawkins, narrated by Richard Dawkins

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

"You're famed intelligence is nothing more than the fart of God!" :dead:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,200
37,893
1,823
Houston
I love the hatred people have for him. Especially when their religion teaches about loving one another.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
I love the hatred people have for him. Especially when their religion teaches about loving one another.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The most Christian like people I know, are Atheists.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
Richard Dawkins is just as extremist as the Fundies are, just in the opposite direction. Both are equally as fucked in the head.

I do not believe that for one second. Richard Dawkins has done nothing but put forth ideas using a very well thought out scientific approach. How can be compared to religious fundamentalists?
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,143
41
Brandon, FL
I do not believe that for one second. Richard Dawkins has done nothing but put forth ideas using a very well thought out scientific approach. How can be compared to religious fundamentalists?

You say that because you support his message and don't support the message of religious fundamentalist. Their tactics are actually very much the same. He is a militantly anti-religion as fundies are militantly pro-religion. A man doesn't write as many books on a topic, join or start as many groups, and proselytize an point of view to the amount he does and realistically consider yourself not an extremist.

Of course you will view his tactics and ideas as well thought out. Personally, his worship of Darwin makes me view him as a populist, since it wasn't really Darwin that created the grand theory of evolution, but more just Natural Selection. If he used Gregor Mendel and Hugo De Vries as his counterpoints to creationism, I'd be more likely to take him seriously. Darwin is populist, plain and simple. Dawkins pontification of Darwin puts him more into the crackpot region to me.

I say this while saying I don't believe in creationism. Not at all. I'm fully into the belief that evolution is the norm. While Catholics are christians, most Catholics are well on board with Evolution as well. We were all taught in school. Not public schools, these are Catholic schools. We were taught the stories of the old testament, but were also taught that they were mostly just stories, parables used to explain things by ancient cultures who didn't have science to teach them better. Catholicism readily accepts evolution, but can also accept the notion of God (not creationism) to be able to allow both beliefs to be symbiotic.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
44
Austin
Why does anyone have to put forth any ideas at all? Who gives a shit if people believe in God? Who gives a shit if they don't? Who gives a shit how convinced anyone is of anything?

The problem is that people are insufferable assholes, and if they spent as much time reflecting on their own egos as running their mouths this world would be nigh perfect. Religion, as well as the absence of it, has nothing to do with God or scientific principle. It has to do with douchebags.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
You say that because you support his message and don't support the message of religious fundamentalist. Their tactics are actually very much the same. He is a militantly anti-religion as fundies are militantly pro-religion. A man doesn't write as many books on a topic, join or start as many groups, and proselytize an point of view to the amount he does and realistically consider yourself not an extremist.

Of course you will view his tactics and ideas as well thought out. Personally, his worship of Darwin makes me view him as a populist, since it wasn't really Darwin that created the grand theory of evolution, but more just Natural Selection. If he used Gregor Mendel and Hugo De Vries as his counterpoints to creationism, I'd be more likely to take him seriously. Darwin is populist, plain and simple. Dawkins pontification of Darwin puts him more into the crackpot region to me.

I say this while saying I don't believe in creationism. Not at all. I'm fully into the belief that evolution is the norm. While Catholics are christians, most Catholics are well on board with Evolution as well. We were all taught in school. Not public schools, these are Catholic schools. We were taught the stories of the old testament, but were also taught that they were mostly just stories, parables used to explain things by ancient cultures who didn't have science to teach them better. Catholicism readily accepts evolution, but can also accept the notion of God (not creationism) to be able to allow both beliefs to be symbiotic.

What I got from that is that you disagree with him because you have a different point of view. A point of view that that may be more tolerate of both sides, and thus you view him as an extreme. That's fine. That's how you see. Not me.

I would never call someone who encourages such things as freedom and intelligent thought as an extremist. I feel that word is thrown around too loosely these days.

Now if you really want to point out an extreme on the opposite side of religious fundamentalists, then you should look to anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens. He is one who advocates that religion, in it's current state, should be abolished. I have never heard those kinds of sentiments coming from Dawkins.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
44
Austin
What I got from that is that you disagree with him because you have a different point of view. A point of view that that may be more tolerate of both sides, and thus you view him as an extreme. That's fine. That's how you see. Not me.

I would never call someone who encourages such things as freedom and intelligent thought as an extremist. I feel that word is thrown around too loosely these days.

Now if you really want to point out an extreme on the opposite side of religious fundamentalists, then you should look to anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens. He is one who advocates that religion, in it's current state, should be abolished. I have never heard those kinds of sentiments coming from Dawkins.

Dawkins is a dick head. As much of a dick head as, say, the Pope. It's none of his business what people believe, and thus he shouldn't be concerned with advocating disbelief. He isn't some free thinking, swell academic. He's an asshole, determined to crap on people's dreams.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
Why does anyone have to put forth any ideas at all? Who gives a shit if people believe in God? Who gives a shit if they don't? Who gives a shit how convinced anyone is of anything?

The problem is that people are insufferable assholes, and if they spent as much time reflecting on their own egos as running their mouths this world would be nigh perfect. Religion, as well as the absence of it, has nothing to do with God or scientific principle. It has to do with douchebags.

If I was able to live a life free from any type of religious interference, then sure, I would not care what others believe in. Unfortunately religion has a MASSIVE influence on practically ever society on earth.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,143
41
Brandon, FL
What I got from that is that you disagree with him because you have a different point of view. A point of view that that may be more tolerate of both sides, and thus you view him as an extreme. That's fine. That's how you see. Not me.

I would never call someone who encourages such things as freedom and intelligent thought as an extremist. I feel that word is thrown around too loosely these days.

Now if you really want to point out an extreme on the opposite side of religious fundamentalists, then you should look to anti-theists such as Christopher Hitchens. He is one who advocates that religion, in it's current state, should be abolished. I have never heard those kinds of sentiments coming from Dawkins.

um

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Straight from the horses mouth. And yes, he is an extremist, as his view is a fundamentally to one side as day a religious fundamentalist is to the other. I am a centrist. I don't think you could view my standpoint as any other way. Accepting of both. Extreme is to take something on one outside edge of a center and proselytizing on it, and Dawkins most assuredly does that.

For example, his television documentary 'The Root of All Evil' definitely does go to the edge of denouncing religion. It's very Anti-theist. He proclaims that a belief in a supreme being does not reflect a 'healthy, intelligent mind', which is absurd.

I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science
Here he takes the road that being centrist is wrong, and uses the concept of miracles (seriously, THATS the arguement) as proof that religion does not keep off the scientific turf. In fact, there are many examples of religious figures doing great work in furthering the scientific understanding that Hawkins himself espouses.

He is an extremist. Plain and simple. Just as bad as the extremists on the other side. He holds no quarter in any belief that isn't his. How is that any different than a fundamental christian, or a radical muslim?
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
um



Straight from the horses mouth. And yes, he is an extremist, as his view is a fundamentally to one side as day a religious fundamentalist is to the other. I am a centrist. I don't think you could view my standpoint as any other way. Accepting of both. Extreme is to take something on one outside edge of a center and proselytizing on it, and Dawkins most assuredly does that.

For example, his television documentary 'The Root of All Evil' definitely does go to the edge of denouncing religion. It's very Anti-theist. He proclaims that a belief in a supreme being does not reflect a 'healthy, intelligent mind', which is absurd.

Here he takes the road that being centrist is wrong, and uses the concept of miracles (seriously, THATS the arguement) as proof that religion does not keep off the scientific turf. In fact, there are many examples of religious figures doing great work in furthering the scientific understanding that Hawkins himself espouses.

He is an extremist. Plain and simple. Just as bad as the extremists on the other side. He holds no quarter in any belief that isn't his. How is that any different than a fundamental christian, or a radical muslim?

Yeah I do not see anything "Extremist" about any of that. Saying religion is dangerous is not a extreme, it's just being factual.

It seems that you believe if anyone has anything negative to say to about religion, then he/she is an extremist. And that seems a little extreme ;)

I do not call Religious people who condemn or insult Atheism, "Extremists". I reserve that word for those who will go to an extreme for their beliefs. Writing a book and saying a bunch of thing that may or may not piss other people off isn't very extreme in my book. Not as extreme as say, flying a plane full of people into a building full of people, 4 times. Or blowing up a Planned Parenthood center. Those are extremists.

No fundamentalism is different. Religious Fundamentalists are such because they practice a strict adherence to their religion. The only thing Dawkins practices is science. If anything you could called him a "Fact Fundamentalist". If their was proof of God exposed today. Dawkins would become a religious man overnight.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,330
9,395
473
40
Oz
Isn't Juli a Christian? Do you ever butt heads?

Sometimes. She's very apt to avoid religious talk with me. I also avoid it because I know exactly how it will go. She'll bring up things, I'll rebut them, and in the end, we'll still believe what we did before we started. I've asked her to read some books from my side, but she wont, and that also adds to me not wanting to discuss religion with her.
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,200
37,893
1,823
Houston
Sometimes. She's very apt to avoid religious talk with me. I also avoid it because I know exactly how it will go. She'll bring up things, I'll rebut them, and in the end, we'll still believe what we did before we started. I've asked her to read some books from my side, but she wont, and that also adds to me not wanting to discuss religion with her.
Have you read books from her side?